Marriage has been a moral and political subject for a very long time, while the practice goes back to ancient history. Discussions of who and how many can join together are found all over the place. The current hot topic asks the question if Mormon marriages are supposed to be equal or patriarchal authoritative. What hasn’t been talked about much is the equally growing number of marriage dissolution. Couples have been divorcing at greater numbers each year. This isn’t just the case outside the LDS Church, but within the Mormon community. Worse yet is an ever increasing rate of Temple Marriage sealings getting dissolved. The trend has become serious enough that LDS President made mention in the April 2011 General Conference of his concerns:
Now, brethren, I turn to another subject about which I feel impressed to address you. In the three years since I was sustained as President of the Church, I believe the saddest and most discouraging responsibility I have each week is the handling of cancellations of sealings. Each one was preceded by a joyous marriage in the house of the Lord, where a loving couple was beginning a new life together and looking forward to spending the rest of eternity with each other. And then months and years go by, and for one reason or another, love dies. It may be the result of financial problems, lack of communication, uncontrolled tempers, interference from in-laws, entanglement in sin. There are any number of reasons. In most cases divorce does not have to be the outcome.
The vast majority of requests for cancellations of sealings come from women who tried desperately to make a go of the marriage but who, in the final analysis, could not overcome the problems.
The high profile re-marriage of Marie Osmond to her first husband Stephen Craig is a small reminder of how fragile relationships seem to be for modern couples. Her choice will be commented on a bit later. Hopefully the second time around will last for the Eternal promise made in the LDS Temple vows. Why it didn’t work out the first time is a personal issue, but the failure is far from typical for too many. Multiple divorces and marriages are no longer associated mostly with the rich and high profile entertainers. The opinion of the Lord on this matter is not hard to find even if forgotten by the Saints. He would not be pleased. Continue reading
This is the fifth and final in a series of posts that examines the topic of Mormon spirituality, or how we respond to the Divine in personal living. Readers can find the first here, the second here, the third here and the forth here. The purpose of the series is to explain why Mormons are the way they are and what that has to do with religion and doctrine. It was inspired by critics who seem to misunderstand or question the inner spirituality of Mormons as materialists or shallow.
Many years ago I wondered what constituted a Mormon spiritual life. This pondering was brought about by critical comments that the LDS religion contained mostly materialistic emphasis of an Earthly Kingdom of God and rejection of spirit/body dualism. Usually this criticism comes from those who either believe in “Faith Only” salvation or spiritual matters should mostly be separate from secular concerns. Research on the subject has brought me to a conclusion that might sound too much like a truism than a profound discovery. Mormonism teaches that true spirituality comes from self-sacrifice in the service toward others.
Almost from the start, the concept of self-sacrifice as spiritual power has been a central Mormon teaching. What can be considered the first Priesthood manual stated:
Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation. For from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life. And it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God.
– Lectures on Faith, N.B. Lundwall Ed., pg 58.
The question is, to what end do we sacrifice? Continue reading
As some of you may be aware, my post from January 20, 2011, entitled “Should We Expect to Find the Temple Ordinances as One Coherent Whole in the Scriptures? Revisiting the Question”, generated a lengthy and impassioned discussion in the comments. There was much debate regarding the value of efforts to compare our modern temple ordinances with ancient ones, and the methods that should be used in such an endeavor. I very much appreciated this discussion and believe that many important points were raised. It was decided, by some of the involved parties, that a debate over all of the points that I suggested in the post would be a very large and time-consuming task, and that, therefore, it would be more profitable for us to discuss specific rituals (with the associated Scriptural passages), one at a time.
Before moving on with this project, I would just like to clear up a few points — a few misconceptions, maybe, regarding my initial post. First of all, I would like to emphasize that my answer to the titular question, “Should we expect to find the temple ordinances as one coherent whole in the Scriptures?”, was negative. There is, obviously, no passage, narrative, chapter, or any other unit in the Scriptures that presents the Endowment or the entirety of the LDS ritual system as a unity or “coherent whole.” I wasn’t attempting to argue for such. I did explain where we could perhaps look for temple themes outside of the traditional locations. Towards the end of the post, I went a step further and suggested that there is a possibility that (although this is not all clearly perceptible from the Scriptural accounts) the ancient Israelites may have performed ceremonies in the precincts of their temple that may have contained many rituals that are comparable to what we do today in our temples. I acknowledged that the theories upon which this assertion are based are conjectural/speculative, but I think that they are a good place to start.
A few years ago a new family came into my ward. They moved from Texas and the wife had a strong accent from that region. Most Mormons from Texas I knew, mostly over the Internet, were as equally proud of that state as any born and raised there. Stereotypes flooded my mind of the typical Texas Mormon, and then of the Utah, California, and Mission field members. It didn’t take long for me to think of other Mormon groupings such as liberal and orthodox. Here is a list of those I can think of and short definitions:
True Blue Mormons – Orthodox members who don’t question authority or divinity of the LDS Church, go to Church on a weekly basis, are mostly married with children, and have or will go through the Temple.
Liberal Mormons – There are several subgroups of these. Each of them have their own defining reason for existence as a label. Most common are pro-gay marriage advocates, Feminists, Democrats, and Evolutionists. Many of them are believers in the divine authority of the LDS Church, but uncomfortable at times with that acknowledgment.
New Wave Mormons – Another name for them might be cultural Mormons, but that is a vague term that can cover any participant in Mormon life. The prominent feature is someone who doesn’t believe in the religion’s divine nature, but still actively defines themselves as members of the LDS Church. They are secularists in religious garb. Continue reading